Govts urged to halve water use

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by bazman, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. bazman

    bazman Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is calling on state and territory governments to reduce water use in capital cities by 50 per cent.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 575853.htm

    Brisbane's main dams are at roughly 35% and I doubt it's going to get any better here.

    They need to keep the level 3 restrictions in all the time, force those who want to water to use water tanks and grey water.

    But that said I hope the local gov doesn't start bring in laws forcing rural land owners to pay for water damed on their properties. Does anyone have to pay a tax on dam water? I also heard on the weekend if you want a new dam in QLD start it now as they will start making them harder and harder to put them in.
     
  2. macree

    macree Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know about plans to 'tax' dams on private property, but the thing that annoys me most with water restrictions and introducing water fees etc - is that industry is the biggest waster of water - but what (is anything?) being done to curtail industries' water use??

    Ree
     
  3. bazman

    bazman Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have heard about some plans to pump city grey water to some large industies, Sorry I can't remember where, but the local government was putting those plans into action. QLD I think.
     
  4. hedwig

    hedwig Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read in teh homepage of "Courier Mail" that more than 30% of the Brtisbane water is leaking out of the pipes - I don not knw which steps are undertaken to repair all this.
    In my area in Brisbane most of the houses are rented - these houseowners do really nothing about tanks, we eve have no dual flush toilet (I prefer the start-stop method because you can even use less than half the flush).
    I can see very often that houseowners make big extensions to their house but have no money left for a tank. It would be a good idea making a law that makes tanks to compulsory new houses or big extensions or global renovations. Even public builings like Universities have no tanks!!!
    The water restrictions seems to me really a reacting on what happens at the moment a not a bit of further thinking.
    An other good idea would be planting millions of trees which would have really an influence on the australian climate like it had a bad influence on the mediterranean climate cutting all the trees.
     
  5. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    g'day baz,

    you might have to refer to the sun-water regulations, but the gov' and the profit takers reckon they own 90% of what falls from the skies, so from waht i have heard not only will they regulate who can put dams in but how many dams you can have or how much water you can accumulate. after all in their minds you are only entitled to only 10% of what falls hey. they are using sattelite to monitor illigal dam building in the south west from what i have heard.

    and that 'grey water' nice clean term for what is going to be recycled water from sewerage treatment plants. yes they can make the water look crystal clear (appear drinkable) and make it odourless and tasteless but they can't remove all the chemical residues form medications, hospitals, low grade uranium waste and industrial waste (will include acids). some of the residues will be hormones (mostly eostrogen), plastisizers, dioxins to name a few. this water through a propesed pipeline costing $.5 billion dollars is to irrigate the fresh food crops that the fresh food sellers keep in storage for 12 months before consumers ge to eat it.

    and i am very wary of councils including the brissy council going the habitat water in the aquafa to get supplies, once they corrupt the aquafa i can't see much hope for the land there after. at the end of the day last figures i heard where that less than 2% of water produced goes to drinking purposes, and something in excess of 80% goes to industry, sounds like those are the areas to look at before anything else.

    len :? :(
     
  6. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hedwig,

    that happens in all major cities brissy pipes are in excess of 50 years old and when you have water restrictions the catch 22 is that extra pressure builds in the pipes and blows them. and the waste from that is immeasurable but the tax payers pay as they will all along. the little people tax payers that is.

    len :cry: :?
     
  7. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hedwig said "The water restrictions seems to me really a reacting on what happens at the moment a not a bit of further thinking."

    I am currently reading some books on how politics affects economics and justice, and the author comes right out and says that goverments have NO foresight whatsoever, and they aren't capable of planning ahead for anything. They are so swayed by what is happening at the moment, their knee-jerk reactions to the people who control them, that they simply aren't capable of doing anything that makes real sense. And you know it's true because we see it all the time -- and the country doesn't matter.

    I kind of makes you want to whack them over the head with a brick, to knock some sense into them. You watch what they do and continually ask yourself, "Can't they SEE the problem? What needs to be done is OBVIOUS!" And it is, to everyone else... esp the people who have to deal with the results.

    In reference to Len's mention that the government is using satellites to monitor illegal dam building: are these dams the kind that simply collect rainfall, or the kind that are filled with river or stream water that accumulates from upcountry? If it's the kind that simply collect rainfall, how did your country allow this to happen? Even in the U.S. we don't have that kind of "sun/water regulation". In fact, you can prevent someone from building a structure that would be cutting off your sunlight, just in case you were going to start using passive or active solar collection.

    Does this apply to rooftop rainwater collection (to tanks) as well?

    Sue
     
  8. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    g'day sue,

    the dams we talk about are catchement dasm or earth tanks in some cases they aren't used to block streams or rivers but to capture run off water so that the property owner may use it to his/her desire. i di hear a figure of aroun $30kAUD mantioned to have a license so you can construct a dam. but then people should realy read the legislation if they have the time and the warewithall, you know what legislation is like to read hey?

    but as i said the short sighted gov' working for the profit mongers say they own 90% of the rain that falls. i have been told by people who live in the south west of our state that they know of landholders who have had visits from the local gov' when they try to build a dam without a permit/license. i got to see a poor grade sattelite pic of our property and it showed the dam as a patch of blue but they can take more detailed pictures than that i have been told. also a few years ago now around 7 i think saw a stroy on tv where a lanholder built a dam and that state authority came around to collect a license fee from him and until he pays he can't use the water under threat of worse penalties. to me it sounds like they mean business the worse of it this will affect all as growing food becomes monopolised and family farms dissappear, but the masses simply don't even know waht is waiting in the sings.

    len :?
     
  9. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the explanation, Len. It all sounds pretty scary, esp when Oz is having such dire water problems. It seems insane to prevent people from building water catchments! I suppose the people there have as much control over their government as we have over ours -- not much. And if the people up and rebelled with a revolution or something, the governments would cry "Anarchy!"

    The people in control are crazy, and most of the people they control are lazy. How do you fix a disaster like that?

    Sue
     
  10. derekh

    derekh Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maintenance on existing dams is OK. I added 2 megalitres to my dam capacity late last year. My brother-in-law turned a small existing dam into "Sydney harbour", all legal.

    I only have the one small dam (60m * 40m) on my place.

    I wonder if adding swales to capture runoff forcing it underground is subject to the same restrictions ?

    derek
     
  11. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    g'day derek,

    i reckon that could be or is mostl likely another sting in the tail of water control by the regulator. so maybe use suttle swalling like rips and rows of mulch and play dumb? they only mean you to have 10% of the rain that falls on your property. so maybe alos they will regulate how many rain water tanks you can have also? all in the name of profit for some off shore company.

    len :?:
     
  12. Mike_E_from_NZ

    Mike_E_from_NZ Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If 90% of the water that falls on your property is owned by the government then issue them with a trespass notice. Let them know that you no longer wish for their rain to fall on your property. It is causing too much damage. Then sue them next time it rains.

    Mike
     
  13. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And disguise your tanks with netting and vines.

    Sue
     
  14. bazman

    bazman Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tanks only hold 35k litres of water, it's the million litres in my dam that worries me.
     
  15. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yep know where you are coming from baz,

    all you can do is hedge your bets and get the ground ripped and maximum water stored in soil. this regulation will affect the family farmers as well it is in favour of the big irrigators on broadacre farms, the ones who do the maximum damage to habitat. oh it's all in the name of growing food hey? once "they" say that the population soon comes to heel hey? after all who wants to even think of an empty stomach??

    len :? :(
     
  16. Mozzie

    Mozzie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Drought has always been a key feature in the Australian landscape. It's nothing new. If the mumblings regarding water tank registration and tax in Brisbane is anything to go by, I don't think it will be a matter of how one stores the water but how much one pays to get it.

    I am aware of legislative changes relating to the Water Act 2000 wherein the idea of "water deeds" is being discussed as an ownership issue for the future. That is, when you buy a property in the future, the land and water will be separate entities, not together as they are now. As I look at trends around the world - such as the price implementation and rationing in various parts of the world (France, Kenya, Taiwan...), I think storage is the lesser of our concerns in the immediate future.

    I admit I'm not a huge fan of on-site dams :) and if higher pricing forces people to educate themselves about alternative methods of water usage and conservation then perhaps this is a good thing.

    The Australian Water Summit is being held in Sydney on 13th and 14th March this year and will be discussing these issues. Perhaps this link will prove to be of some interest to you. https://www.acevents.com.au/water2006/programme.html
     
  17. hedwig

    hedwig Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no, I think storage is pretty helpful, because all water which is not stored from rainfall it has to come from dams transported from far away and there is where the rainfall later lacks. I think it is really a diffence if I water the garden/wash from a tank rather than transporting the water hundreds of km.


    The same thing is with farm dams, if there are too much farm dams the water is lacking to the rivers, but in fact I don't think that there are so much farmdams that there is qa measurable change.
    Perhaps it would be wiser that everybody who wants to construct a dam should make an application with a plan and later somebody from the government should have a look if the size is correct in order that every small farm could have his dam and nobody constructs too big.
     

Share This Page

-->